G.R. No.

L-23475 April 30, 1974

HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner,
vs.
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS
FACTS
House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application was filed in the House of Representatives. It was passed on
third readings without any amendments. The said Bill was sent to Senate for its concurrence. There were
amendments but not included in the journal of the Senate proceedings as having acted upon. The
Secretary of the State sent a letter to the House of Representatives that the House Bill No. 9266 had been
passed by the Senate with amendments. Attached in the letter is the certification of amendments which was
the one recommended by Senator Roxas not Senator Tolentino amendments which were actually approved
by the Senate. After which the House of Representative was able to return the approved Bill, copies were
printed. The printed copies then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House of Representatives,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Senate and Senate President. After
which, the Secretary of the House transmitted four copies of the bill and gave it to the President of the
Philippines who affixed his signature thereto by way of approval. The bill became RA 4065. Senator
Tolentino then issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of the House Bill No. 9266 signed into law
by the Preident was wrong version of the Bill actually passed by the Senate because it did not modify the
amendments introduced by him and approved on the Senate floor. Both the Senate President and the
President withdrew their signatures and denounced RA 4065 as invalid. Petitioner argued that the
authentication of the presiding officers of the Congress is conclusive proof of a bills due enactment.
ISSUE
Whether or not the House Bill No. 9266 is considered enacted and valid.
RULLING
No. since both of the Senate President and President of the Philippines had withdrawn their signatures;
therefore, the bill was not enacted and not became a law. The journal of the proceedings of each House of
Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not
authenticated and is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case.
This Court is merely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the Chief Executive
was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this
case, this Court can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were
not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and signed by him. This Court is not asked to
incorporate such amendments into the alleged law, which admittedly is a risky undertaking, 13 but to declare
that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. This We do, as indeed both the
President of the Senate and the Chief Executive did, when they withdrew their signatures therein. In the

face of the manifest error committed and subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the
Chief Executive, for this Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that
the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous
consequences not intended by the law-making body.